COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS, A.P.HYDERABAD AND ORS. ETC.versusKUNSAM SARANARAYANA AND ORS.

A           COMMISSIONER_OF SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND
               RECORDS, A.P. HYDERABAD AND ORS. ETC.
                                 v.
                  KUNSAM SARANARA YANA AND ORS.

                                   SEPTEMBER 11, 1997
B

              [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]


         Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition and Conversion Into
C   Ryotwari Act, 1956.

       S. I 4-A-Ryotwari patta-Jurisdiction of civil Court to determine
  genuineness of -Ryotwari patta produced in the proceedings under Land
  Acquisition Act-Notice issued u/s. 14-A that the patta had been obtained
  fraudulently-Writ petitions filed before High Court-High Court directing
D the Government to file a suit u/s. I 4 challenging genuineness of ryotwari
  patta-Claimant was also directed to file a separate suit for compensation
  or damages in respect of the land in dispute-Held, directions given by high
  Court do not suffer from any error and call for no interference.
                              ..
E           CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 191-192 of
    1988.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.86 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in W.P. No. 12044 and W.A. No. 745of1986.

F         Mrs. K. Amareshwari, V.R. Anumolu, K. Ram Kumar and Ms. Asha Nair
    for the Appellants.

            A. Subba Rao, Adv. for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

G         These two Civil Appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High
    Court dated 10.12.1986. The controversy before us is limited and revolves
    around a patta of land measuring 28 acres and 82 cents, which is Stated to
    be poramboke land. The respondents produced the said patta before the
    Reference Court in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
H   Act for the first time. The appellant issued a notice under Section 14-A of the
                                           90
     COMMR. OF SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORD5, A.P. v. KUNSAM SARANARAYANA   91
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams {Abolition and Conversion Into                      A
Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter the Inam Abolition Act). In that notice, inter-
a!ia, it was stated that there was a prima-facie case to suspect that the patta,
in question, had been obtained fraudulently. The notice went on to say :

       "It is therefore proposed to take up suomotu enquiry as there is prima
       facie case to suspect the genuineness of the patta alleged to have              B
       been issued in this case."

       The respondents filed Writ Petition No. 1225178 resisting the claim of
the Government that the area of28 acres and 82 cents, which was the subject
matter of the patta, vested in the Government" by virtue of Section 2-A of
the Jnam Abolition Act. That Writ Petition was allowed and it was held that C
the notice under Section 2-A of. the Inam Abolition Act, in the facts of the
case, was invalid. The respondents also filed Writ Petition No. 1798/85 seeking
a direction to the Govt. to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition
Act in respect of the Patta land, measuring 28 acres1 and 82 cents. That Writ
petition was allowed on 24.3. 1986. Writ Appeal No. i45/86 was decided against D
that order. After notice under Section 14-A of the Inam Abolition Act was
issued on 22. 7.1986, the respondents filed yet another Writ Petition No. 12044/
86, seeking quashing of that notice. The Writ Appeal filed by the Government
(W.A. No. 745/86) and the Writ Petition filed by the respondents (W.P. 12044/
86) were heard together and disposed of by the common judgment, against
which these two appeals have been filed.                                         E
      Before the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears the principle
contention that was canvassed was that the Ryotwari Patta, dated 3.10.1974,
in respect of the land measuring 28 acres and 82 cents, was a fraudulent and
spurious document. It was asserted that no patta had ever been granted to
the respondents and that the same had been manipulated with ulterior motives.          F
In view of the stand taken by the appellant before the High Court, and the
counter stand of the respondents the Division Bench, after taking note of the
provision of the Act, issued the following directions :

        "(!) The Government represented by the appropriate authority shall             G
        file a suit within three months from the date of receipt of this order
        under S.14 of the Act against the petitioners challenging the
        genuineness of the ryotwari patta allegedly granted to the petitioners
        on 3.10.1974, by the Tahsildar, Narsipatnam in respect of ac. 28-82
        cents of land in S. No. 1,5,7,8,9,12,15,18,20,22 and 23 situated in
        Gopalapatnam village Visakhapatnam District.                                   H
    92                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A           (2) The petitioners shall prove their claim regarding the genuineness
            of the patta in the aforementioned suit directed to be filed.

           (3) Independent of the suit directed to be filed by the State Government
           as abovementioned, the petitioners shall also file a separate suit
           against the Government after complying with the necessary formalities
B          of giving notice etc., claiming compensation or damage in respect of
           ac. 28-82 cents of land above referred and "Veeraparaju Kathu". The
           suit should be filed within a period of 4 months from the date of
           receipt of this order.

           (4) The suit filed by the Government as well as the petitioners in
C          accordance with the above directions shall be entertained by the
           Court and both of them shall be tried jointly. Considering the long-
           standing claims the Court should make every possible endeavour to
           dispose of both the suits within a period of nine months from the date
           of institution of suits.

D          (5) If the civil courts should upheld the genuineness of the patta, a
           decree would be passed by the civil court granting damages or
           compensation as may be considered appropriate on such basis as may
           be found reasonable by the civil court.

           (6) It is needless to State that the Government as well as the petitioners
E          will be entitled to seek further remedies if they are aggrieved by the
           judgment and decree of the civil Court."

           Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the provision
    of Section 14 of the Inam Abolition Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the
F   civil courts, the judgment of the High Court, is not sustainable. We cannot
    agree.

           A perusal of the notice issued under Section 14-A of the Act shows
    that the enquiry was proposed to determine the genuineness or otherwise of
    the patta relied upon by the respondents. It was, therefore, essentially the
G   allegation of the appellants that the ryotwari patta dated 3.10.1974, was a
    fraudulent and spurious one, which had weighed with the authorities to issue
    Section 14-A notice in the terms in which it was done in the present case.
    Considering the language of that notice and the facts and circumstances of
    this case, we find that the directions given by the Division Bench of the High
    Court (supra) do not suffer from any error whatsoever and call for no
H   interference at our hands. The determination of the genuineness of the patta
      COMMR. OF SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS, A.P. '· KUNSAM SARANARAYANA   93
in the civil Court, as directed by the Division Bench was a proper course to            A
be adopted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Section 14-
A of the lnam Abolition Act, which ban the jurisdiction of the civil court to
question the decision of the Tehsildar, the Revenue Court or the Collector
under the Act itself, carves out an exception ''where such decision is obtained
by misrepresentation, fraud or collusion of parties". The directions given by           B
the High Court (supra) are, therefore, justified by_ the provisions of Section
14 itself. We do not find any cause to interfere with the impugned judgment.
The appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed, but, without any order as to
costs.

       We clarify that because of the pendency of the appeals in this Court,            C
the time granted by the High Court, in direction No. I and direction No. 3, has
since expired. The parties shall, therefore, have the same period, as is mentioned
in direction No. I and direction No. 3, respectively, to take appropriate action
and that period would start running from today.

RP.                                                            Appeals dismissed.       D